In this notification, Gauhati High Court notified that going forward A4 size white papers to be used in all judicial as well as official works in the High Court and Subordinate Courts under its jurisdiction from 1-March-2015 onwards.
Few guidelines are also issue:
The District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cancelled the bail earlier granted to the Accused, on the baseless and unproven allegations that “some unknown persons on their behalf started threatening the defacto complainant with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise in the case“.
Hon’ble AP High Court has rightly held that the above is not a ground that can be relied upon for Bail cancellation under CrPC 439, as the said allegations are at that point in time are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.
…and…
By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.
Correcting few directions given in Rajesh Sharma judgment here, a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued this judgment.
Shutter Down of Family Welfare Committees
From Para 18,
18. It was submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that the decision in Rajesh Sharma (supra) requires reconsideration, for the said judgment confers powers on the Family Welfare Committee to be constituted by the District Legal Services Authority which is an extra-judicial committee of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens to look into the criminal complaints under Sections 498-A IPC in the first instance and further, there has been a direction that till such time a report of the committee is received, no arrest should be made. It is urged that the constitution of FWC to look into the criminal complaints under Section 498-A IPC is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From Para 33,
33. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, we find that the Court has taken recourse to fair procedure and workability of a provision so Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India : (2012) 10 SCC 603, Para 52; SCBA v. Union of India : (1998) 4 SCC 409, Para 47; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. : (1989) 2 SCC 754, Para 7; Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham : (2012) 1 SCC 333 State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh : (2012) 3 SCC 346, Paras 46, 52 & 85 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, Para 61 that there will be no unfairness and unreasonableness in implementation and for the said purpose, it has taken recourse to the path of interpretation. The core issue is whether the Court in Rajesh Sharma (supra) could, by the method of interpretation, have issued such directions. On a perusal of the directions, we find that the Court has directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the duties of the Committees. The prescription of duties of the Committees and further action therefor, as we find, are beyond the Code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code. There can be no denial that there has to be just, fair and reasonable working of a provision. The legislature in its wisdom has made the offence under Section 498-A IPC cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar (supra) are in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC and Section 41-A CrPC. Similarly, the guidelines stated in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency. The purpose has been to see that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy.
From Para 35,
However, the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail would stand on a different footing. They are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code. When an application for bail is entertained, proper conditions have to be imposed but recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground while rejecting an application for grant of bail under Section 498-A IPC. That cannot be considered at that stage. Therefore, we do not find anything erroneous in direction Nos. 19(iv) and (v). So far as direction No. 19(vi) and 19(vii) are concerned, an application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317 CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought.
From Para 38,
38. In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family Welfare Committee and its constitution by the District Legal Services Authority and the power conferred on the Committee is impermissible. Therefore, we think it appropriate to direct that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra). It will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest.
39. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove.
40. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same.
41. As far as direction Nos. 19(iv), 19(v) and 19(vi) and 19(vii) are concerned, they shall be governed by what we have stated in paragraph 35.
So, in summary, the following are the currently active guidelines from SC modified from Rajesh Sharma, apart from Arnesh Kumar.
From Para 19 of Rajesh Sharma Judgment:
iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/ complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;
v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;
vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and
vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. (On filing an application u/s 205 CrPC or 317 CrPC;Judgments here)
Citations : [2018 SCC 10 443], [2019 SCC CRI 1 276], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1501], [2018 AIR SC 4273], [2018 DLT 252 175], [2018 CRIMES 3 503], [2018 GUJ LH 3 140]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81618143/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b9d5e5d9eff431109ed3e71
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/social-action-forum-for-manav-adhikar-and-another-versus-union-of-india-ministry-of-law-and
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/sec-498a-ipc-only-hc-can-quash-cases-on-settlement-a-third-agency-created-by-courts-cant-exercise-statutory-functionssc/
In Shivangi Bansal Vs Sahib Bansal on 22 Jul 2025, Division Bench of Apex Court restored the Family Welfare Committees.
In this case, hon’ble supreme court did not find any evidence that which “led that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by appellant Nos.2 & 3. Before holding that appellant Nos. 2 & 3 had committed the offence, it had to be found that they are responsible for subjecting her to cruelty or harassment, soon before her death. We find in this case evidence is only confined to the husband and not against appellant Nos. 2 & 3. Hence on the evidence on record, so far as appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, we extend to them the benefit of doubt and acquit them.”
There was a Criminal appeal filed on this case, the order of which is available below.
Another case, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case.
A recent research study A. Hashika and M. Kannappan on misuse of Section 498a of IPC in India.
Read the original study from here.
This is the order of compensation under CrPC 357 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, made out in a case of alleged kidnap and rape of a minor. What is the basis for the compensation awarded? I am still wondering.
This below is the conviction order, just FYI.
In this order from hon’ble high court of Calcutta, which was based partially on this judgment from High Court of AP here, held that the learned Magistrate, in the fitness of the things, should not have Issued warrant against the petitioner at the first Instance without assigning any reason in compliance with provisions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand held that Dowry demand allegation after a considerable amount of time after marriage is not maintainable for the simple reason that they do not remain as bride and bridegroom as mentioned in the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Here is the case details from ecourts site.
Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.
